Please convince me of statism!

[angelatc]

I'd love to see a logically consistent and coherent counter-argument...

Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

 

[angelatc]

so little substantive debate....

Such a subjective phrase. I would maintain there is nothing at all in this entire thread worth reading. Heck, there's not even been a single original thought introduced, except mine.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I haven't even seen any evidence of growth either. It's almost ironic that the swelled head position he is taking - "I am an intellectual leader!" - is born of the same attitude that instantly drives most people quickly away from libertarianism in the first place.

Really? Libertarian talking points are becoming "mainstreamed"-such as criticism of the FED and undeclared war. This is not just due to RP, but to the generations of libertarians who came before him.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

Does this mean you will now give up on Constitutionalism? (Constitutionalism is derived from philosophy after all-and an inconsistent, flawed one at that)

 

[angelatc]

Really? Libertarian talking points are becoming "mainstreamed"-such as criticism of the FED and undeclared war. This is not just due to RP, but to the generations of libertarians who came before him.

That might be somewhat true, but I've yet to meet anybody off of the internet who thinks that all government should be abolished for the betterment of man.

Plus, I think there's a gap between believing that talking points in a one-sided conversation are a signal that an actual philosophy is being mainstreamed. As someone who saw libertarians do this same dance during the Reagan years, I have a legitimate reason to believe that as soon the the GOP swings back into power, the philosophy will be ostracized again and the talking points, as well as any perceived advances into whatever it is they want these days, will disappear.

 

[angelatc]

Does this mean you will now give up on Constitutionalism?

Of course not. That position would be politically retarded.

It wasn't the philosophers that got the nation to adopt that set of laws. It was the soldiers, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course not. That position would be politically retarded.

It wasn't the philosophers that got the nation to adopt that set of laws. It was the soldiers, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

No. The Constitutional Convention was comprised of philosophers (some lay-philosophers, some more active). It's true that the Constitution wasn't enacted by persuading the public (it was a coup-the purpose of the convention was actually to amend the Aricles Of Confederation), but it was written by philosophers. (the Federalist Papers are full of philosophical waxing)

 

[angelatc]

No. The Constitutional Convention was comprised of philosophers (some lay-philosophers, some more active). It's true that the Constitution wasn't enacted by persuading the public (it was a coup-the purpose of the convention was actually to amend the Aricles Of Confederation), but it was written by philosophers. (the Federalist Papers are full of philosophical waxing)

I didn't say it was written by soldiers.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't say it was written by soldiers.

I didn't say you said that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Such a subjective phrase. I would maintain there is nothing at all in this entire thread worth reading. Heck, there's not even been a single original thought introduced, except mine.

Good lord...

The OP posed a question. No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it. It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.

Your original thought was an insult. Don't be too proud of it.

 

[CCTelander]

Good lord...

The OP posed a question. No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it. It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.

Your original thought was an insult. Don't be too proud of it.

In my experience, ad hominem, insults and sniping are the first resort of those lacking more substantive arguments.

 

[Seraphim]

Might as well ditch your concept of freemarkets and individual liberty if you believe that. Why bother if you believe that?

Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

 

[Jake Ralston]

Good lord...

The OP posed a question. No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it. It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.

I answered the OP straight up.

To Conza88:
What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:

1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have.

Conza didn't like that answer. He learned from me that ideas are not put into action based on logic or "morality" alone. It takes the support and willingness of others to participate. That is where Anarchy has and always will fail. People simply do not want Anarchy. I don't know how much more clear I can be about that.

 

[Sentient Void]

That might be somewhat true, but I've yet to meet anybody off of the internet who thinks that all government should be abolished for the betterment of man.

Then you need help with reading comprehension. I said the 'spectrum of liberty' has grown significantly. This includes not only anarchists (and the anarcho-capitalist stripe has grown significantly relative to other anarchist types, which is why lefty anarchists heads are exploding everywhere over the rise of ancap), but minarchist libertarians, constitutionalists, etc. This even implies those who hold similar views to you.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/20/libertarianism-on-the-rise-in-last-three-years/

^^ THAT illustrates my point I was making (which was *not* that anarchism has gone mainstream, but the spectrum of libertarianism is going mainstream). Do you think this happened for no reason? It just happened ex nihilo, in a vacuum? Or because people are discussing the issues, debating them, and researching the issues - leading them to libertarian positions, whether they realize it or not?

As a side note I think it's quite clear that Ron Paul has sparked this growth of libertarian philosophy.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I answered the OP straight up.



Conza didn't like that answer. He learned from me that ideas are not put into action based on logic or "morality" alone. It takes the support and willingness of others to participate. That is where Anarchy has and always will fail. People simply do not want Anarchy. I don't know how much more clear I can be about that.

And the consequences of your answer were spelled out. You made your point. It wasn't a very good one in terms of logic, but that's okay. You're free to discuss it further, bow out of the thread, or continue making the thread about Conza personally, in which case I hope the mods will at least have the integrity to deal with it appropriately.

Some of us are quite interested in this discussion.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

What is your point? Are you under the impression that someone is suggesting that philosophers should rule the world?

 

[Jake Ralston]

And the consequences of your answer were spelled out. You made your point.

Which consequences?

It wasn't a very good one in terms of logic, but that's okay.

Right. Glad to see you understand now that logic fails in philosophy. All it takes is a blanket of "ignorance" and any other insults used against the "statist" and logic or not your plans are spoiled. The Anarchist is so easy to deal with its almost comical.

continue making the thread about Conza personally, in which case I hope the mods will at least have the integrity to deal with it appropriately.

Well, i'm no advocate for ad hominem fallacies. But in certain cases, when people have personality ... hmmm ... i'll say "glitches", that actually ends up having a lot to do with that persons train of thought, and reasoning behind why they believe certain things. Not naming any names or insulting, but over the years i've found this to be true. I know it appears as a "logical" fallacy to some, but that just adds to the laundry list of why logic doesn't always apply.

Some of us are quite interested in this discussion.

It is a tired discussion. One that bears absolutely no fruit. But if it floats your boat you will continue discussing.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Which consequences?

What happens is that you are tacitly admitting that your argument is flawed, based on violence and force, is logically inconsistent and should therefore be disregarded as a poor philosophical model.

Thank you for that.

Right. Glad to see you understand now that logic fails in philosophy. All it takes is a blanket of "ignorance" and any other insults used against the "statist" and logic or not your plans are spoiled. The Anarchist is so easy to deal with its almost comical.

I don't think this thread is for you, perhaps even this sub-forum. One cannot deduce that "logic fails in philosophy" from the fact that YOUR response wasn't logically consistent.

I'm embarrassed for you that you seem to think that "anarchists are easy to deal with". In order to "deal with" anarchists, you need to deal with their argument. You haven't done anything remotely close to that. Again, this is a philosophical question about the substance of statism - what is the philosophical justification for it? If you don't care about that question, or think that it is a pointless discussion, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion - I can even respect that opinion.

Well, i'm no advocate for ad hominem fallacies. But in certain cases, when people have personality ... hmmm ... i'll say "glitches", that actually ends up having a lot to do with that persons train of thought, and reasoning behind why they believe certain things. Not naming any names or insulting, but over the years i've found this to be true. I know it appears as a "logical" fallacy to some, but that just adds to the laundry list of why logic doesn't always apply.

A little advice, then - stay away from that person. Even if what you say is true, this thread still is not about that person's personality.

It is a tired discussion. One that bears absolutely no fruit. But if it floats your boat you will continue discussing.

Yes. That's correct - it floats my boat so I'll continue discussing it. If in your opinion it is a tired discussion that bears no fruit, I ask you to please stop derailing it because, again, some of our boats are floated by it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Seriously, if you're not interested in discussing the philosophical justification for the state, and all the consequences thereof, please give it a rest.

I understand that Conza bothers some of the minarchists around here. I don't personally care why, but I do think that this - even after 16 pages - has the potential to be an interesting discussion if someone - anyone - would be willing to take up his challenge rather than to make the thread about his perceived personality flaws. At this point I'm even willing to see someone play devil's advocate...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Are men created equal? Are men soveriegns unto themselves? The answer to these questions is *objectively* (provable; able to be observed) 'yes'. As such, society should be organized in such a way as to best respect this truth, and that explicitly precludes the existence of an entity with a monopoly on physical and coercive force.

I'd love to see a logically consistent and coherent counter-argument...

//